Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, which has sponsored workshops in 20 regions and held a number of additional sectoral workshops, has been particularly effective at reaching out to stakeholders interested in the scientific findings. All of the workshops and assessment teams have had participation and inputs reaching well beyond the academic community to industry, state and local government, NGOs, and the general public. We believe that the dialogue created with stakeholders will be invaluable for the USGCRP's future planning, research, and assessment activities. Recommendations of Recent National Research Council Reports Q3. A3. The 1999 National Research Council's report entitled Hydrological Science Priorities for the U.S. Global Change Research Program: An Initial Assessment found that "Several priority areas for research in hydrological sciences are currently not well developed in the USGCRP." How is the FY 2001 USGCRP addressing this finding? In its 1999 review of hydrologic science priorities for the USGCRP, the NRC Panel on Hydrology advanced three conclusions regarding USGCRP water activities. In response, in the summer of 1999, the Subcommittee on Global Change Research appointed Dr. George Hornberger to chair an independent study group to consider priorities for the USGCRP global water cycle program element. At the same time, a USGCRP interagency working group co-chaired by NASA and NOAA was established to coordinate the implementation of the research priorities developed in the report. During the past year Dr. Hornberger and 15 colleagues drawn from universities and research institutions across the country have been developing a global water cycle science plan. A near-final draft of this report (hereafter referred to as the "Hornberger report") was delivered in July 2000. Following technical edit and peer review, it is expected to be released in final form later this year. The "Hornberger report" is centered on three major questions dealing with: 1) the underlying causes of variability in the water cycle and the extent to which this variability is affected by human activity; 2) the prediction of variations in the global and regional water cycles, and 3) the linkages between changes in the water cycle and changes in the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, and other nutrients. In addition, three integrative themes are being recommended as the bases for new Federal research initiatives. In summary, the "Hornberger report" deals with a number of the issues raised by the NRC report, and, where appropriate, broadens their scope. A very important benefit of this initiative is the emergence of an interagency coordination mechanism centered on the science plan, representing the first time that substantive interagency discussions have taken place regarding the coordination of Federal global change water research priorities. Q4. A4. The 1999 National Research Council's report entitled Capacity of U.S. Climate Modeling to Support Climate Change Assessment Activities found "that the United States lags behind other countries in its ability to model long-term climate change," and that situation required “a more comprehensive national strategy for setting priorities, and improving and applying climate models.” How is the USGCRP addressing this issue? Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, posed essentially the same post-hearing question to USGCRP Vice-Chair Dr. Margaret Leinen, Associate Director of NSF for Geosciences, pursuant to her testimony at a hearing held on March 30, 2000. I associate myself with her response, which correctly represents the USGCRP position: The U.S. remains a world leader in many kinds of climate modeling, and in the research that enables modeling to progress. The U.S. has, however, fallen behind some other nations in high-end climate assessment modeling, i.e., in the ability to perform multiple long-term global simulations of different future climate scenarios. The USGCRP has taken a number of steps to respond to the findings of the NRC report and to improve U.S. high-end climate modeling efforts, including an extensive and ongoing effort to produce a new integrated climate modeling strategy. Global climate modeling research and application in the U.S. is sponsored by NSF, DOE, NASA, and NOAA, all of which have established, through planning processes involving the scientific community, well-defined priorities consistent with goals and objectives of the USGCRP, and within the context of their individual missions. An interagency group of scientists and managers has established the Common Infrastructure Initiative and has made progress in the development of a flexible national modeling infrastructure that will facilitate the exchange of scientific advances and technology among climate modeling and research and operational weather modeling groups. A USGCRP Integrated Modeling and Prediction Working Group formally coordinates the agencies' climate modeling research. This Working Group, which reports to the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (the interagency body that oversees the USGCRP), has reviewed and endorsed the various plans for climate modeling activities and, in particular, the proposal for the Climate Simulation Laboratory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). In addition, the Advisory Board for the NSF-sponsored Climate System Model at NCAR has been reconstituted to also include scientists and managers from DOE, NASA, and NOAA to reflect their growing participation in the nation's only community climate model. Two specific efforts are underway to develop a national strategy for climate modeling, one by the NRC and one by the Federal agencies. There is membership overlap between them. These efforts are in direct response to the NRC Modeling report. The Administration has begun a major Information Technology Research (ITR) initiative to develop more advanced supercomputers and software. The USGCRP agencies will work together to develop a long-term modeling strategy that will determine how the climate modeling community can best leverage these new capabilities developed through the ITR and other initiatives and will determine where specialized climate modeling investments should focus. U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Q5. Section 106 of the US Global Change Research Act states the following: "SEC. 106. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT. On a periodic basis (not less frequently than every 4 years), the Council, through the Committee, shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress an assessment which— (1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings; (2) analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and (3) analyzes current trends in global change, both human-inducted and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years." Page 137 of the conference report, House Report 106-379, accompanying H.R. 2684, "The conferees have deleted bill language proposed by the House under General Provisions in title IV prohibiting the expenditure of funds to publish or issue an assessment required under section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 unless the supporting research has been subjected to peer review and, if not otherwise publicly available, posted electronically for public comment prior to use in the assessment, and the draft assessment has been published in the Federal Register for a 60 day public comment period. While the conferees have deleted this specific bill language, the Agency is nevertheless expected to adhere to this provision." In a response to a question from me at the Subcommittee hearing on March 9, 2000, you said, "we will in fact follow all of that language." In his reply of December 3, 1999 to Chairman Sensenbrenner's questions about the "The USGCRP agencies are also funding a number of academic climate change that will be reviewed and published separately from Also, in his December 3, 1999, reply to Q1.9, Dr. Lane said: “We Q5.1 The January/February 2000 issue of “Acclimations,” the bi-monthly newsletter of the National Assessment, includes an article by Philip Mote entitled "Pacific Northwest Region Releases Report" that states that the Report was released on November 9, 1999. The article also states: "With able assistance from the UW News and Information Office, word of the report was widely dispersed on TV, on radio, and in newspapers. Press coverage on the day of the release (November 9) was generous around the region, including several large front-page articles. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Portland Oregonian, and two other newspapers also wrote editorials playing up our theme that the region's government agencies are illprepared to resources in manage natural a changing climate." (See http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov/newsletter/2000.02/. Also, the summary of the report entitled “Impacts of climate variability and change on the Pacific Northwest” is available at http://tao.atmos.washington.edu/PNWimpacts/report.html.) Q5.1.1 Was this regional assessment part of the "input" for the National Assessment Synthesis Report under section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. If not, what was the authority for the regional assessment? A5.1.1 The Pacific Northwest regional report is one of the regional assessment activities that have been funded by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. These are separate activities from the National Assessment Synthesis Report. The results from this peer reviewed regional assessment document were considered during the preparation of the National Assessment Synthesis Report. Q5.1.2 Did this regional assessment "meet the requirements for source materials and peerreview" described in Dr. Lane's reply of December 3, 1999 to question 1.4 (Q1.4)? A5.1.2 Yes, this regional assessment met "the requirements for source materials and peerreview" described in Dr. Lane's December 3, 1999 letter. Q5.1.3 Was the supporting research for this report subjected to peer review? A5.1.3 Most of the research referenced in the Pacific Northwest Regional Report was published in peer-review scientific journals. In addition, the Pacific Northwest Regional Report was itself subjected to a rigorous peer-review prior to publication. Q5.1.4 If not otherwise publicly available, was this report posted electronically for public comment prior to use in the assessment? A5.1.4 This report was published in November, 1999, and has been available to any interested member of the public since that time. The summary and other relevant material have been available electronically. Q5.1.5 Was the draft assessment published in the Federal Register for a 60 day public comment period? A5.1.5 No, the Pacific Northwest draft was not published in the Federal Register for a 60-day public comment period. Q5.1.6 Please explain why the publishing and issuing this assessment was not in violation of the conference report language quoted above and in direct contradiction to your March 9 statement that “we will in fact follow all of that language.” A5.1.6 The regional reports are not Federal reports, and the USGCRP therefore believes that Congressional report language is not applicable to them. This is why the regional reports have not been posted in the Federal Register. Q5.2 According to information posted at the site web http://www.essc.psu.edu/mara/results/overview report/index.html, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment, entitled Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Mid-Atlantic Overview was released in March, 2000. Q5.2.1 Was this regional assessment part of the "input" for the National Assessment Synthesis Report under section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. If |